Thanks Gawker.

The above was the first comment I posted. Then, I posted under Purkiss' own comment, to bring it to his attention.

You're probably right, 3 comments might be a bit overkill. But I don't know if each person reads each and every comment in a thread. Normally the OP will, I suppose.

My primary reason for responding to 3 separate comments is to address the person making the specific comment, not just the entire thread. If it's a general thread comment, then I comment directly under the post, in the first-tier of comments. How do you choose where to comment, and why?

My general stance: I dislike it when I see false or misrepresented information being posted on GAW or other forums/channels (sites whose central purpose is to advance the front in the Information War), particularly so when it's done through consistent sloppy practice, as opposed to a random mistake, which anyone who posts has done. But should I perhaps just forget about mal-posting, and ignore it when wrong, mistaken, misleading or even fake information comes in?

As to Purkiss being one of the best post-ers on GAW, well, I'd say he's one of the most prolific, but that's not necessarily the best, IMO. Pretty much most of Purkiss' content I see elsewhere in areas I browse, but I acknowledge that he brings a lot of good info to the board.

And, ACKshwally, I have engaged with Purkiss directly a number of times; to point out when he fails to give any credit to the source, when members of the board come away thinking HE is the source and give him all sorts of praise (which he habitually fails to correct) when the content is something he's simply posted from elsewhere, uncredited. He used to do this a LOT.

Our exchanges have alway indicated - stated in Purkiss' words himself - that he simply forgets and/or is simply in too much of a rush to give proper source, (which I personally consider a relevant and important detail, but maybe that's just me?) and I've certainly accepted that his motives are genuine (whereas some might not, when it happens again and again and again). Moreover, happily, I have noticed improvements in his practice. Whether that 'refinement' is due to my input or not, well, that's up for grabs.

I have always engaged with him in good faith, and I thought he had a LITTLE respect for my contributions. I'm sorry to see his sarcastic and defensive comment above, when all I did was point out to him that the photo is of a different, significantly older incident.

Along with his protestations of his sincere motives (which I don't really doubt), he is usually receptive when someone points out sloppy or poor practice. Seems like his particularly reactive in this case.

Me? I just write paragraphs and paragraphs and bore people to death.

Have a nice day.

Thanks Gawker.

The above was the first comment I posted. Then, I posted under Purkiss' own comment, to bring it to his attention.

You're probably right, 3 comments is probably overkill. In my case, I don't always read every comment in a thread. Sometimes I skim and browse. My primary reason for responding to 3 separate comments is to address the person making the comment, not just the entire thread. If it's a general thread comment, then I comment directly under the post, in the first-tier of comments.

How do you choose where to comment, and why?

My general stance: I hate it when I see false or misrepresented information being posted on GAW or other forums/channels whose purpose is to actually advance the front in the Information War. (Particularly so when it's done through consistent sloppy practice, rather than just a random case, which we ALL have done). Should I perhaps just forget about mal-posting, and ignore it when wrong, mistaken, misleading or even fake information comes in?

As to Purkiss being one of the best post-ers on GAW, well, I'd say he's one of the most prolific, but that's not necessarily the best, IMO. Pretty much most of Purkiss' content I see elsewhere in areas I browse, but I acknowledge that he brings a lot of good info to the board.

And, ACKshwally, I have engaged with Purkiss directly a number of times; to point out when he fails to give any credit to the source, when members of the board come away thinking HE is the source and give him all sorts of praise when the content is something he's simply posted from elsewhere, uncredited. He used to do this a LOT.

Our exchanges have alway indicated - stated in Purkiss' words himself - that he simply forgets and/or is simply in too much of a rush to give proper source, (which I personally consider a relevant and important detail, but maybe that's just me?) and I've certainly accepted that his motives are genuine (whereas some might not, when it happens again and again and again). Moreover, happily, I have noticed improvements in his practice. Whether that 'refinement' is due to my input or not, well, that's up for grabs.

I have always engaged with him in good faith, and I thought he had a LITTLE respect for my contributions. I'm sorry to see his sarcastic and defensive comment above, when I did nothing more than point out to him that the photo is of a different, significantly older incident.

Despite his protestations of his sincere motives (which I don't really doubt), he does seem to have a chip on his shoulder when someone points out sloppy or poor practice.

Me? I just write paragraphs and paragraphs and bore people to death.

Have a nice day.

Thanks Gawker.

The above was the first comment I posted. Then, I posted under Purkiss' own comment, to bring it to his attention.

You're probably right, 3 comments is probably overkill. However, if we do not keep ourselves accountable, who will? I hate it when I see false or misrepresented information being posted on GAW or other forums/channels whose purpose is to actually advance the front in the Information War. Should I perhaps just forget about it, and ignore it when wrong information or even fake information comes in?

As to Purkiss being one of the best post-ers on GAW, well, I'd say one of the most prolific, but that's not necessarily the best, IMO.

And, ACKshwally, I have engaged with Purkiss numerous times; to point out when he fails to give any credit to the source, when members of the board come away thinking HE is the source and give him all sorts of praise when the content is something he's simply posted from elsewhere, uncredited. Our exchanges have alway indicated - stated in Purkiss' words himself - that he simply forgets and/or is simply in too much of a rush to give proper source, (which I personally consider a relevant and important detail, but maybe that's just me?), and I've accepted that his motives are genuine (whereas some might not, when it happens again and again and again). And, happily, I have noticed an improvement in his practice. Whether that refinement is due to my persistence or not, well, that's up for grabs.

I have always engaged with him in good faith, and I thought he had a LITTLE respect for my contributions, and am really sorry to see his sarcastic and defensive comment above.

I guess for some people, intention, motive and solidarity just aren't as important as they are for others.

Oh, look, now the flair says [Old Photos]. So I guess SOMEONE thinks accuracy is important in information warfare. /sarc.

Have a nice day.